From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@hp.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] locking/rwsem: Use a return variable in rwsem_spin_on_owner()
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 09:47:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFz6KKxGVxPAbsmw9GsKJfy85P2C0EmYBrGpn+aJDjZJWw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150409075311.GA4645@gmail.com>
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> The point is to generally unify the 'out' paths - i.e. to merge it
> with the rcu_read_unlock() as well, so that we have really simple
> gotos and only a single exit path.
Maybe just have the rcu read-locking be done in the *caller* (possibly
through using just a helper wrapper function that does nothing but the
locking), so that you can just do a simple "return false" in the
function itself.
That said, it worries me a bit that we do that spinning while holding
the RCU read lock in the first place. Yes, we stop spinning if
"need_resched()" is set, but what effect - if any - does all of this
have on RCU latency? If somebody is waiting for a RCU grace period,
I'm not seeing that setting need-resched...
At least with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU, the read-unlock is *not* just doing
a preempt-disable, so it's not necessarily just about need_resched().
It does all the magic with 'rcu_read_unlock_special.s' too..
Adding Paul. From a RCU locking standpoint, the thing is basically
(not the real code, edited down):
rcu_read_lock();
while (sem->owner == owner) {
if (!owner->on_cpu || need_resched())
break;
cpu_relax_lowlatency();
}
rcu_read_unlock();
so we busy-loop while holding the RCU read lock while
sem->owner == owner && owner->on_cpu && !need_resched()
is true. That is usually not very long, but we've already had
watchdogs go off when we get this wrong, so..
Paul, comments? Are there particular latency concerns wrt
CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU here? Or am I just being silly?
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-09 16:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 108+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-08 19:39 [PATCH 0/2] locking: Simplify mutex and rwsem spinning code Jason Low
2015-04-08 19:39 ` [PATCH 1/2] locking/mutex: Further refactor mutex_spin_on_owner() Jason Low
2015-04-09 9:00 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/mutex: Further simplify mutex_spin_on_owner() tip-bot for Jason Low
2015-04-08 19:39 ` [PATCH 2/2] locking/rwsem: Use a return variable in rwsem_spin_on_owner() Jason Low
2015-04-09 5:37 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-09 6:40 ` Jason Low
2015-04-09 7:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-09 16:47 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2015-04-09 17:56 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-04-09 18:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-09 18:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-09 18:39 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-04-10 9:00 ` [PATCH] mutex: Speed up mutex_spin_on_owner() by not taking the RCU lock Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 9:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 9:21 ` [PATCH] uaccess: Add __copy_from_kernel_inatomic() primitive Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 11:14 ` [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Implement get_kernel() Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 11:27 ` [PATCH] mutex: Improve mutex_spin_on_owner() code generation Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 12:08 ` [PATCH] x86: Align jump targets to 1 byte boundaries Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 12:18 ` [PATCH] x86: Pack function addresses tightly as well Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 12:30 ` [PATCH] x86: Pack loops " Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 13:46 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-05-15 9:40 ` [tip:x86/asm] " tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2015-05-17 6:03 ` [tip:x86/apic] " tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2015-05-15 9:39 ` [tip:x86/asm] x86: Pack function addresses " tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2015-05-15 18:36 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-05-15 20:52 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-05-17 5:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-17 7:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-17 7:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-18 9:28 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-05-19 21:38 ` [RFC PATCH] x86/64: Optimize the effective instruction cache footprint of kernel functions Ingo Molnar
2015-05-20 0:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-05-20 12:21 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-05-21 11:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-21 11:38 ` Denys Vlasenko
2016-04-16 21:08 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-05-20 13:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-20 11:29 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-05-21 13:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-21 14:03 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 12:50 ` [PATCH] x86: Align jump targets to 1 byte boundaries Denys Vlasenko
2015-04-10 13:18 ` H. Peter Anvin
2015-04-10 17:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 18:32 ` H. Peter Anvin
2015-04-11 14:41 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2015-04-12 10:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-13 16:23 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2015-04-13 17:26 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2015-04-13 18:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-13 19:09 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2015-04-14 5:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-14 8:23 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2015-04-14 9:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-14 11:17 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2015-04-14 12:09 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 18:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-12 23:44 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2015-04-10 19:23 ` Daniel Borkmann
2015-04-11 13:48 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2015-04-10 13:19 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-04-10 13:54 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-04-10 14:01 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-04-10 14:53 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-04-10 15:25 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-04-10 15:48 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-04-10 15:54 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-04-10 21:44 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-04-10 18:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-10 14:10 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-04-11 14:28 ` Josh Triplett
2015-04-11 9:20 ` [PATCH] x86: Turn off GCC branch probability heuristics Ingo Molnar
2015-04-11 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-11 18:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-04-11 19:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-12 5:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-12 6:20 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2015-04-12 10:15 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-12 7:56 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-04-12 7:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-12 8:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-12 21:11 ` Jan Hubicka
2015-05-14 11:59 ` [PATCH] x86: Align jump targets to 1 byte boundaries Denys Vlasenko
2015-05-14 18:17 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-14 19:04 ` Denys Vlasenko
2015-05-14 19:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-15 15:45 ` Josh Triplett
2015-05-17 5:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-17 19:18 ` Josh Triplett
2015-05-18 6:48 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-15 9:39 ` [tip:x86/asm] x86: Align jump targets to 1-byte boundaries tip-bot for Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 11:34 ` [PATCH] x86/uaccess: Implement get_kernel() Peter Zijlstra
2015-04-10 18:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 17:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-10 18:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 18:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-04-10 14:20 ` [PATCH] mutex: Speed up mutex_spin_on_owner() by not taking the RCU lock Paul E. McKenney
2015-04-10 17:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-10 18:05 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-04-09 19:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] locking/rwsem: Use a return variable in rwsem_spin_on_owner() Jason Low
2015-04-09 19:58 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-04-09 20:58 ` Jason Low
2015-04-09 21:07 ` Paul E. McKenney
2015-04-09 19:59 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-09 20:36 ` Jason Low
2015-04-10 2:43 ` Andev
2015-04-10 9:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-04-08 19:49 ` [PATCH 0/2] locking: Simplify mutex and rwsem spinning code Davidlohr Bueso
2015-04-08 20:10 ` Jason Low
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CA+55aFz6KKxGVxPAbsmw9GsKJfy85P2C0EmYBrGpn+aJDjZJWw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).